D&D (2024) DMG 2024: The Planes

[TwoSix]

I never said otherwise. Do we really have to put a boilerplate explanation that this is ALL opinion at every post?

In my opinion, no.

 

[Remathilis]

I think how use the Monster Manual at the table makes a big difference here. I tend to run with heavy improv and little prep; so at the table, I'm a lot more like likely to think "I need something vaguely devilish for this encounter" than "I need a nalfeshnee and an orthon".

So if you think "I need something alien and aberrant" what do you open to?

 

[TwoSix]

So if you think "I need something alien and aberrant" what do you open to?

I'd have to know something about what type of creature I want. Which is why I generally favor categories in the MM over alphabetization by individual entry name.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So if you think "I need something alien and aberrant" what do you open to?

In the MM? Mind Flayer, Beholder, maybe Grell. In other sources, I'm rather fond of Foulspawn (or whatever they're called in 5e).

 

[Remathilis]

In the MM? Mind Flayer, Beholder, maybe Grell. In other sources, I'm rather fond of Foulspawn (or whatever they're called in 5e).

My point is that you gotta know what aberration you are looking for because they aren't lumped up like devils are. If that works for aberrations, it should work for fiends.

 

[Shardstone]

My experience, which also involves many dms and players, differs substantially from yours. Dungeons are common; megadungeons, while not common, are far from unheard of.

I think part of the difference probably arises from experience. When members of a group encounter an awesome dungeon, they are more likely to try to create one when they themselves DM. If your large group of gamers hasn't had a lot of fun dungeoneering experiences, they are less likely to spend the time to create one.

I think a lot of it is more tastes. I've played in great dungeons in my group. But most of my group are people who are into performative arts. They are more attracted to the model that WotC is adopting then, which to them better enables the kind of dramatic situations they want to get into.

 

[Hussar]

My point is that you gotta know what aberration you are looking for because they aren't lumped up like devils are. If that works for aberrations, it should work for fiends.

To be fair though, “creature by type” lists are pretty common and I’d be surprised if there isn’t one in the Monster Manual. If there isn’t, DnD beyond has you covered. And if not that, there will be a bajillion of them on the net.

People need to stop pretending that this is 1996 and no one ever uses anything but the books alone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My point is that you gotta know what aberration you are looking for because they aren't lumped up like devils are. If that works for aberrations, it should work for fiends.

I'd just read the book cover to cover until I know what all there is, at least in a general sense. That's what I did with the 1e MM (my first MM).

 

[dave2008]

To be fair though, “creature by type” lists are pretty common and I’d be surprised if there isn’t one in the Monster Manual. If there isn’t, DnD beyond has you covered. And if not that, there will be a bajillion of them on the net.

They already said the 2024 MM will have a list of monsters by type and by environment too IIRC.

 

[Reynard]

They already said the 2024 MM will have a list of monsters by type and by environment too IIRC.

Lists are fine, but I still think there is value in grouping monsters into categories and presenting them as such. You might know the theme you want but not the exact creature. This helps solve that problem. If you already know the monster you want, even if you don't know the category you can look it upon the index or alphabetical list.